SV: viyoga (Kc 10) --comment

If one interprets adho.thitam as denoting "in the bottom position" = "in the
final position" the introduction of upari in Kacc-v would mean "in the top
position" which is difficult to give a consistent sandhi interpretation.
However, the use of the potential  "naye" "one should lead to" in the
immediately following sutta 11 can only refer to joining letters in writing,
it has no implications whatever for phonetics.
The author of the Nyaasa explains that adho.thitam denotes a consonant
devoid of its vowel (assara.m katvaa), not exactly illuminating. The
commentators were clearly unaware of the fact that the rule addresses a
particular way of writing, different from the one en vogue in SE Asia at the
time when they composed their commentaries.

Ole Pind

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Eisel Mazard
Sendt: 5. juli 2006 06:20
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] viyoga (Kc 10) --comment

Re: Kacc. 1-1-10

I read _adho.thita.m_ as "in the final position" (literally "in the bottom
position") of a word.  Conversely, Dr Pind's survey proposes that it
indicates "the graphic practice of writing the final consonant in a conjunct
below the line" (§23).  I take it that Dr. Pind's interpretation is
supported by comparative reading of Vararuci's Prakrit grammar, whereas
Senart claims that his reading of _adho.thita.m_ meaning "final" is
supported by the Ruupasiddhi, where, he claims, it is explained with the
word _antika_ (but perhaps Senart was recalling a commentarial layer on the
Ruupasiddhi, rather than the source text?).

Senart interprets the whole verse as a guide to pronunciation, rather than
spelling ("...en garde contra une prononciation indistincte"), but
Vidyabhusana does not follow his lead, instead reading the verse
(primarily) as describing the fact that the anuswara is sometimes kept
distinct from the initial vowel of the word following.

In other words, following Vidyabhusana, we would regard the purpose of verse
10 as a mere caveat to verse 11, viz., we do not *always* subjoin final
consonants to the initial vowel of the next word following.

Yet another interpretation is offered by H.T. DeSilva, who translates the
passage as: "Separate the initial consonant from the vowel by sub-rule".  I
do not consider this a very helpful gloss; apparently the sub-rule is left
up to the imagination.

I would surmise that, originally, the purpose of 1-1-10 made sense in terms
of "softening" the sequence from verses 9 to 11; if you're just reciting the
suttas (not the vutti, which was, of course, added later) then it would make
sense to have a caveat of this kind in the sequence, just generally
reminding the reciter that (notwithstanding verses 9 and 11) the final
consonant paired with an initial vowel can remain mutually distinct
(notwithstanding 9 and 11, etc.).  However, I do not believe that this
should be understood as a prescription for pronunciation (viz., in all cases
to remain phonetically distinct), nor do I see it as pertaining to a scribal
or pictographic quality of the words.  I simply have no need for the further
hypothesis concerning orthography in this verse.  However, in support of the
general proposition as quite possible, I might note Mason's description as
to how young Burmese monks studying Kacc. were taught _Sandhi_ by a
procedure of writing part of the word below the line, then changing the
vowel, etc., and returning the "lowered" letter into the word (this is in
his introduction, p. iv - v, with a near-inscrutable table provided in
illustration).  Mason thought that this type of instruction was implicit in
at least some verses of Kacc.
as a text, viz., that the examples were intended to be copied out
repeatedly, following a procedure whereby a syllable would be put below the
line to help the student practice the permutation of the vowels (etc.)
--however, this is *not* equivalent to "the graphic practice of writing the
final consonant in a conjunct below the line"
in a finished text.

If the primary example of the rule is (as Vidyabhusana suggests) the
mutation of the ansuwara (viz., the final consonant _par excellence_ in
Pali) the supposition that this peculiar final consonant (or its permutation
as "ma", "mu", etc.) is supposed to become a subscript in the fashion
suggested by Dr. Pind seems to an odd match with the wording and context of
the verse in question.  I am not at all
dogmatic: I would be delighted to learn that I am wrong, if this may be the
case.

So, why is the sole example (from the Dhp) of "Tatraayamaadi" provided at
all?  I do not assume that it is especially salient example that the Vutti
has chosen, but it certainly would not make sense as an example of keeping
pronunciation distinct (following Senart's interpretation).  It might be
taken as an example of inconsistent _nigghaiita sandhi_, showing a form that
only appears with the anuswara permuted because of the poetic metre of the
Dhp, but perhaps would be more commonly (or: prosaically) found written out
in a "viyojaye" form.

E.M.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/GP4qlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links